What I’ve always suspected now has some solid evidence behind it:
Less attractive women seek casual sex as a compromise, and more attractive women avoid it.
The University of Notre Dame has issued a press release highlighting the research of sociologist Elizabeth McClintock (H/T: Stuart Schneiderman):
“McClintock studies the impacts of physical attractiveness and age on mate selection and the effects of gender and income on relationships.”
Perfect for HUS!
By way of background, McClintock buys into the sexual economics model of relationships:
Couple formation is often conceptualized as a competitive, two-sided matching process in which individuals implicitly trade their assets for those of a mate, trying to find the most desirable partner and most rewarding relationship that they can get given their own assets. This market metaphor has primarily been applied to marriage markets and focused on the exchange of income or status for other desired resources such as physical attractiveness, but it is easily extended to explain partner selection in the young adult premarital dating market as well.
…Just as good looks may be exchanged for status and financial resources, attractiveness may also be traded for control over the degree of commitment and progression of sexual activity.
This confirms what David Buss said in The Evolution of Desire nearly 20 years ago:
Women desire a lasting commitment, and the most desirable women are in the best position to get what they want.
The study also features a methodology that should please those HUS readers who put little faith in surveys and hypothetical “what if” questions:
Rather than using a direct measure of sexual and romantic goals, this paper uses reported outcomes to infer goals. The advantage to this approach is that individuals may not know what they most value in partners and relationships and/or may answer questions about preferences and priorities in accordance with gender-stereotyped sexual and romantic scripts. Indeed, for men there is evidence that the sexual behavior they expect of themselves is not consistent with their actual experiences.
McClintock also points out that a preferred strategy isn’t very useful if you don’t have the power to bring your dreams to fruition:
Actual sexual and romantic outcomes are interesting because they reflect compromised rather than ideal choices: Individuals’ ideal preferences may be unattainable, forcing them to compromise and enter sub-optimal unions (or to remain single).
McClintock’s background summary cites many studies that show physical attractiveness to hold a relatively low place in the hierarchy of desired attributes, for both women and men. However, she questions the validity of these responses, much as HUS readers did when looking at the results of the Single in America survey.
In contrast, in experimental studies designed to measure individual’s acted preferences (as opposed to stated preferences), physical attractiveness is highly valued by both genders. The consistency of findings over a wide range of studies makes the conclusions reasonably credible: Both women and men value physical attractiveness highly in actual choices but value it less when reporting their preferences.
McClintock hypothesized that the most attractive people should be able to more effectively realize their goals in mate selection. She explores and contrasts “social structural” effects, i.e. a sexual double standard constraining female sexuality, vs. evolutionary theory, i.e. genetically determined gender differences, on outcomes.
Social Structural Perspective
- Gendered sexual norms vary over time and place and respond to changing social conditions.
- Women’s and men’s relative valuation of physical attractiveness and financial potential have become increasingly similar as women’s labor force participation increases, and this trend is stronger in more gender-egalitarian regions of the United States.
- Age, education, feminist ideology, and political orientation are also important, modifying the effect of gender on the valuation of partners’ physical attractiveness and status.
- The sexual double standard, still prevalent today, penalizes women and forgives (or rewards) men for accumulating sexual experience.
- Women favor committed, long-term relationships.
Evolutionary Theory Perspective
- Men may choose between short-term mating strategies, in which they mate with many women without committing resources to potential offspring, or a long-term strategy, in which they offer support in raising offspring in exchange for sexual access.
- Women may also pursue a mixture of short- and long-term mating strategies. They use short-term mating to acquire “good genes,” generally identified by physical attractiveness and bravado. They use long-term mating strategies to acquire material support in raising offspring.
- Women will be more selective than men in picking casual sex partners.
| McClintock’s Hypotheses | Social Structural | Evolutionary Theory |
|
More physically attractive women and men will be more likely to have had a romantic relationship than less attractive women and men. |
Yes | Yes |
|
More physically attractive women and men will be more likely to have had sexual intercourse than less attractive women and men. |
Yes | Yes |
| More physically attractive men will have more sexual partners than less attractive men. | Yes | Yes |
| More physically attractive men are more likely to have sexual intercourse soon after meeting a new partner, compared to less attractive men. | No | Yes |
| More physically attractive women are less likely to have sexual intercourse soon after meeting a new partner, compared to less attractive women. | No | Yes |
| More physically attractive men will be more likely to describe their relationships as casual sexual relationships and less likely to describe their relationships as exclusive relationships, compared to less attractive men. | Yes | Yes |
| More physically attractive women will be more likely to describe their relationships as exclusive relationships and less likely to describe their relationships as casual sexual relationships, compared to less attractive women. | No | Yes |
Methodology
n = > 14,000
Mean age = 21.5 years
To measure attractiveness, subjects were rated from 1 (very unattractive) to 5 (very attractive). In addition, BMI was accounted for, using the following metric:
<18.5: Underweight
19-24: Normal weight
25-30: Overweight
30+: Obese
Findings
Women
1. For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with increasing physical attractiveness.
2. Very physically attractive women are more likely to form exclusive relationships than to form purely sexual relationships.
3. Attractive women are less likely to have sexual intercourse within the first week of meeting a partner.
4. Underweight and normal-weight women are more likely to report romantic experience.
5. Overweight women report approximately 10% more partners than normal-weight women whereas obese women report approximately 10% fewer partners.
6. For women the effect of being underweight on within-relationship outcomes resembles the effect of being very physically attractive.
(This suggests that the factors influencing romantic and sexual desirability are at least in part socially structured because underweight women are less fertile so the evolutionary perspective predicts that they would be less able to obtain desired outcomes.)
These results are consistent with the social structural model that posits that women’s romantic and sexual goals are shaped by the double standard of sexuality.
Men
1. For men, the number of sexual partners increases with increasing physical attractiveness.
This suggests that men seek a greater number of sexual partners than women: Physically attractive men do better in the resulting competition for sexual access.
2. For men, being very physically attractive increases the chance of reporting purely sexual relationships (versus exclusive relationships).
3. Being physically attractive also increases the chance of having sexual intercourse in the first week of acquaintance.
4. Normal-weight men report the most partners.
5. Underweight men are predicted to report 17% fewer partners, and obese men are predicted to report 27% fewer partners.
These results are consistent with an evolutionary model in that partnerships characterized as “only having sex” and partnerships in which sexual intercourse occurs after a brief period of acquaintance are indicative of a female short-term mating strategy.
General
1. Very physically attractive individuals are more advantaged than unattractive individuals are disadvantaged.
In many instances, only very physically attractive individuals differed significantly from average/attractive individuals (the reference group) whereas unattractive individuals did not differ.
2. Women and men who are more educated and/or who have higher-status parents are rated more attractive and tend to have lower BMI.
Conclusion
It is clear that sexual and romantic outcomes are at least partially socially structured.
First, the sexual double standard unequivocally indicates that women will favor committed sexual relationships whereas some formulations of the evolutionary perspective suggest that women may pursue both long- and short-term mating strategies.
Second, the sexual double standard predicts that women will prefer delaying sexual intercourse whereas the evolutionary model does not make a clear prediction regarding gender differences (or similarity) in the preferred timing of sexual intercourse.
Third, the evolutionary model clearly indicates that more physically attractive men will have a greater propensity to form casual sexual relationships whereas the social structural model provides less guidance in predicting men’s behavior (the sexual double standard is directed at women).
McClintock notes that the two theories may overlap:
Perhaps the sexual double standard has persisted in part because the difference in sexual behavior that it enforces is evolutionarily determined and would exist regardless. An alternative explanation is that evolutionary theories of human mating behavior have been developed post hoc to explain observed behavior: Insofar as observed behavior is consistent with the sexual double standard, evolutionary theories will tend to make similar predictions.
Stay tuned, McClintock has a new study coming out that looks at the exchange of female beauty for male status, i.e. hypergamy. I’ll keep you posted.
{ 298 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 »
Is attractiveness then the new slut tell?
Does the multipenis factor (MPF) negatively correlate with perceived beauty factor (PBF)?
Does beauty (on many levels) decline as you go to the right on this charming info graphic?
http://www.girlschase.com/images/how-many-partners-0.jpg
.
Interesting article, but I’m not exactly sure what to DO with the info…
So really attractive women tend to have lower N. That’s great for very attractive guys that can land a SR9 or 10. What about the vast majority of us down here in SR 4 to 8 range? The guys here aren’t getting as much play, and the girls are getting MORE play from the guys higher in SR that can’t get the SR9-10 women to sex them up.
Is there really any wonder why many men have “slut angst”?
It makes sense that the more attractive women are more fun to play with and game. They haven’t had multiple dicks beat out the fun and innocence from them.
“Is there really any wonder why many men have “slut angst”?
How to Dupe the Duper –
“When she sees you as an easygoing, nonjudgmental guy, she’ll be far more likely to give you the scoop on whom she really is, and you can make a much better informed judgment about what you want with her in your life going forward.”
http://www.girlschase.com/content/womens-forgotten-past
.
“They haven’t had multiple dicks beat out the fun and innocence from them.”
aka the multi penis effect
The argument that restricted girls can’t hook up because they’re not as attractive as the unrestricted girls no longer makes sense. I love it.
If even average people can hook up, restricted girls are not because of personal choice/personality/morals. Pretty much every girl has the option to be promiscuous or even have a trail of “sorta boyfriend” 2 week – 3 month STRs.
That’s an interesting study, Susan! I suppose that it doesn’t bode particularly well for high-SMV “power couples”, as the high SMV women appear to be taking lower SMV men into committed relationships while the high SMV men are having casual sex with lower SMV women. There are ways around this outcome, of course—people could be under or over reporting sexual behavior patterns, high SMV men could be courting high SMV women and supplementing with STRs on the side, and so on.
I learned recently of the existence of various websites, organized by college, in which men can share sexy pics that female students have sent them. So you could look under, say, TriDelt/Mary//32Dcups///Auburn and there could be a photo gallery of pics, many of them nude, that an ex-BF has chosen to share anonymously.
What is perhaps more surprising is the pro-sex pos sites that are soliciting boob shots of women on various campuses and then displaying them publicly as part of a campaign for young women to take charge of their own sexualities.
I don’t think this is some widespread trend on campuses, but in the past few weeks, I have had two female students ask me if I’d like to see their photo submission candidate pictures before they send them in (both students cross-attend a very large public university nearby and that uni apparently has one of these boobs sites up and running. The sites—which supposedly are run by women—are getting more and more submissions, so having one’s breasts accepted for publication is becoming a competitive, status marker-type
thing).
Conclusions for,
Women: Yeah, we’re pretty. or I’m ugly so I should slut it up.
Men: I’m hot. Lucky me. or I’m ugly and therefore should date reformed and/or current sluts.
Not supporting the HUS caters to all SMVs meme.
Not to say I disagree just that this is bad news for most people.
“Not to say I disagree just that this is bad news for most people.”
Understatement of the thread already? Its bad news for people at or above average in SMV, and downright earth shattering for anyone average or below.
Don’t the women in the SMV5-8 range even realize that when they hook up with a player/cad/sr9-10 they are decreasing the chances they’ll live ‘happily ever after’ with a comparative SR man later? Don’t they even think for one moment that the SR6 they will someday marry might not be too thrilled about the SR9 Cad she banged on holiday in 2005?
I mean it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the big picture here and see where the pitfalls are. Of course, it also requires that the person doing the looking can step away from what he/she wants for herself/himself in that moment and project a path forward. I guess I”m expecting WAY too much from my fellow humans.
When I think back to the hottest/most popular girls in school, none of them is married. The married ones with kids are the plainer girls who were less glam and less popular with the hot guys.
How to explain that?
I think it could be reasonably good news for unrestricted women of modest SMV, since they would theoretically be able to get taken to Poundtown by hot guys, a least for STRs. Could it also be good news for modest SMV men with trad courtship skills and inclinations? Maybe they could obtain desired LTRs with the prettiest girls, since high-SMV men are not willing to give these girls what they demand.
(I’m not saying that this is what actually tends to happen in practice, just bringing it forward as a strawman scenario for discussion)
Men: I’m hot. Lucky me. or I’m ugly and therefore should date reformed and/or current sluts.
It’s a little different for men…as looks isn’t the numero uno thing women go for.
Men: I have game. Lucky me…or I don’t have game and have to settle for reformed and/or current sluts.
True, but IME, the r^2 between looks and game is pretty strong due to social proof and experience in the development years.
It’s always weird when I meet good looking guys who have terrible game, but it does happen every so often. The good thing is that these guys are the easiest to “alpha up” if they legitimately care to learn because their looks allow them the leeway.
Roissy posted a similar theory months ago, sans data for the most part.
Ted D, among the smart girls I know, the 5-8s didn’t slut it up with the male cads/alphas 9-10s. Maybe the data should be controlled for other factors before concluding it’s the effect of physical attractiveness alone.
Classic r vs. K selection scenario here. The smart (as in, actually got some good sense) girls are not going to be short-term oriented at all. So no matter their looks they didn’t go for the short-term strategy. Hence most of them are married or engaged before 30.
What is perhaps more surprising is the pro-sex pos sites that are soliciting boob shots of women on various campuses and then displaying them publicly as part of a campaign for young women to take charge of their own sexualities.
My faith in humanity has decreased by a 10% factor.
Hollywood here I come :p
In other news
According to this study I’m superhot!
Seriously I happen to agree to an extent. The creme of la creme of my model friends were not giving it away and many of them were still virgins. The ones almost at the top were the ones slutting it up. So I guess there are other factors at play. Like the ones almost at the top still felt they needed to gamble in the presence of someone hotter to get some opportunity with the top guys because they knew competing with looks only was a lost battle?
“When I think back to the hottest/most popular girls in school, none of them is married. The married ones with kids are the plainer girls who were less glam and less popular with the hot guys.”
Maybe it has more to do with popular girls thinking they’re too “fabulous” to marry down from “the type of happiness and type of man they deserve? Or it could be the fact that plain-to-slightly-pretty girls are associated with chastity/humility/ideal wife, and can attract more LTR/marriage minded guys?
In any event, the most attractive women don’t have the highest MMV. Seems to be women who fall into the 4-7 category who do.
Ion, yeah that is my thinking as well. It seems that the really “hot” girls are all chasing after the super “hot” guys, while the more “average” girls tend to be with the more “average” guys. I also think most LTR/marriage-minded guys have more requirements than just looks…
Incidentally, there is a girl who is more “average” in looks who got engaged to a guy who is probably objectively “hotter” than her. But she has such a fantastic, sweet and loving personality, and they are well-matched on their interests (she is interested in extremely outdoorsy stuff which most girls are not).
“In any event, the most attractive women don’t have the highest MMV. Seems to be women who fall into the 4-7 category who do.”
Bingo.
“it could be the fact that plain-to-slightly-pretty girls are associated with chastity/humility/ideal wife”
That’s the explanation for less attractive being more likely to be married.
The hottest ones come off as a too high risk for most guys.
Nice post, very interesting. As you say, it supports well what most of us suspected.
I need to save the link to this post as a favorite, perhaps use it for reference in upcoming posts on The Rules Revisited.
Hope’s experiences notwithstanding, it looks like Ted is right. I too am not sure what a 20-something (of either sex) would do with this information, mostly because it seems to boil down to “Winners win and losers lose.” “Game” has very little to do with the outcomes, if this is to be taken at face value.
Let me offer something that might help. The sociological aspects being considered change over time. As I read, I couldn’t help but think that, someone like Kristen Stewart, who is no doubt considered attractive by most now, would not be in the ’20s and ’30s (Mae West was much closer to the female ideal then), or even in the ’50s (think Marilyn Monroe).
I’m not sure how quickly this change happens, but, um, Kate Upton is once again the SI Swinsuit Edition cover girl.
@Susan:
The only major problem I have with this study is that, like so many others that employ logistic regression, the odds for the baseline group isn’t reported so it’s impossible to make good comparisons in terms of probability (which matter) instead of odds ratios (which don’t). This leads to two observations:
1) Because odds ratios are reported, this distorts the interpretation. Even for odds ratios of up to 1.5, this just isn’t that big of a change in probability unless the odds of the baseline case are very small (2:1 -> 3:1 implies 66% -> 75%, but 10:1->15:1 implies 91%->94%). Similar demonstrations are possible for values of the odds ratio like 0.8.
2) For the relationship status part, the odds ratios interact with each other when coming up with probabilities. Therefore it is impossible to make an informed guess as to just how important a factor may be. It is safe to say that the baseline probability is smaller (because the total probability has to be split more ways) so the effect should be larger, but without the missing data we really don’t know how meaningful the shifts are. For instance, 0.8 of 0.25:1 odds (or a baseline probability of 25%) is a probability of 16%. Even at 0.1:1 (probability of 9%) 0.8 of those odds is a probability of 7.4%. The odds would need to be very small before a 0.8 odds ratio really starts to matter.
The golden rule?
She who has the gold makes the rules?
When I came across this study, I was reminded of something mentioned in a Sex & The City episode: good looking women aren’t good in bed because they don’t have to be. Knowing that a man will do anything to keep you around makes it easy for a very attractive woman to just sit there and not have to slut it up. On the flip side, women lower on the food chain have to have something to offer, lest they miss out. Though I do find it interesting that even slutting it up has diminishing returns based on weight. After all, while the overweight girls had 27% more partners than average, the obese girls had 17% fewer partners than average. Interesting.
In terms of attractiveness, I’m with what Jason773 said. The hottest guys get that experience, get comfort with women, then success breeds success. This even fits nicely with the fact that many dudes from abusive or neglectful homes tend to rack up the body count. After all, if you have to rely on your own resources to take care of yourself, you’ll figure what you have to offer people in a hurry.
True.
The higher SMV women are also probably less likely to engage in casual sex because the men they date are much more eager to offer commitment to them.
This resonates for me. It’s not uncommon for me to come on here and complain about the men I date, who appear “Alpha” in most contexts, that offer commitment to me on a silver platter right away. I’ve never really believed that most men are commitmaphobic. I do believe, however, that men have much higher standards when it comes to choosing a woman to commit to.
Higher SMV women probably have an easier time eliciting the DTR conversation from a man than lower SMV women. The men like what they see, and decide to cash in their chips quickly.
Makes sense to me.
I by no means, however, think that high SMV women should slack off or be “dead fish” in the bedroom. If you are going to have a natural advantage already, you might as well put in the effort to bring your A game in other ways to really sweeten the pot.
She understands good study design! I’m going to look up her other studies. Really curious to see what else she’s published.
Todd: Actually the quote from SATC is regarding men. Carrie: “That’s the thing about good looking men – they’re never good in bed, because they never had to be”.
I do think this research is interesting, but I’m not sure just HOW important attractiveness is. My personal experience is very different (in fact, all the women I know with 20+ partners are very good-looking). I find other factors – feminist attitude, daddy issues and high testosterone in women – to be much more important in terms of how promiscuous a woman is.
@ Hope
In my observations, the most attractive girls are usually not the most popular girls.
@ Hope
Also, you have to be careful about perceived SMV. For example, from your posts, it would seem that you’re only average looking, whereas you’re actually an 8-9.
Susan-
This is why average men are utterly screwed and should not marry. Because the women in their attractiveness cohort have dome more damage to their ability to pair-bond than the hotter girls have.
The highest quality women get screwed too, because instead of marrying their alpha, like they used to be able to do, they get sidelined until the alphas get done plowing through the 5s and 6s, so to speak.
The 5s and 6s (A certain Ms. Owen comes to mind) get ruined by their 5 minutes of alpha (times 100), leaving them unable to want the men they once could have had.
The average women “win” (if you can call it that) in the short-term SMP, and the alphas win big, getting to play with their soft harem until they ge bored with that and get going with career and family.
Beta males have only one thing to console themselves with: The 5s and 6s (might as well call them perps) were the ones who did all the damage due to their decisions (they call them mistakes).
Just imagine as the current crop ages, can you even begin to imagine how many single, lonely, miserable people there will be?
“Higher SMV women probably have an easier time eliciting the DTR conversation from a man than lower SMV women. The men like what they see, and decide to cash in their chips quickly.”
Which is the flip side of women who are lower SMV giving it away to get commitment…while women of higher SMV don’t have to give it away when the guy gives commitment to her on a silver platter.
INTJ, hah thanks, but I don’t think I’m 8-9. If that were the case I’d have dated the Bastiats and Zachs, not Coopers and OTCs. But I have always been more drawn to the nerdy, awkward and outcast types than the jockish, smooth and mainstream types.
To be fair, the married ladies I’m talking about are all within healthy BMI and definitely not ugly by any means. They just aren’t “hot” by current mainstream standards. They were the girls in jeans and t-shirts, who didn’t participate in bars and clubs, etc.
Maybe the goalposts have moved, and any girl who is not overweight is considered hot?
@BB
I think that is definitely the dynamic in college, generally speaking. I’ve said many times here that female 9-10s are a bargain right now. Hit them up for a relationship just before closing time and you may get lucky. In all seriousness, I think some very high SMV women are on the sidelines, and some use LTR criteria to select men who may be less physically attractive than they are, but appealing in other ways.
Yes, this is possible, but hard to pull off for a LTR. I’ve definitely seen it happen. A girl in my focus group was duped for a full year and a half, and commenter Anne recently reported something similar. (Both these cases involved a lot of long-distance cheating.)
Whether this dynamic changes by the mid to late 20s I’m not sure – I know of some cases where the high SMV guy has tired of the scene and is willing to commit to a woman if he can find her. There’s also the alpha outside/beta inside phenomenon – the good looking guys who have always been more LTR-oriented even when they could pull ONSs. I’ve known a few of those. And of course the high T/high E guys, another variation that may choose the LTR at some point.
I recall hearing about those boob sites when my daughter was in school. She and her sorority sisters were scandalized by it – it was strictly a slut activity. Perhaps its appeal has widened. Raunch culture at its finest.
I knew people would feel this way. The restricted women will feel vindicated and the guys will feel discouraged. I confess it’s hard for me sometimes to publish certain findings. I want to share good news to HUS readers, not bum everyone out. However, I think there is some good news.
First, the study reported that low BMI gave women as much of a bump in terms of options as being very physically attractive facially.
Second, the most attractive women lack suitors for the reasons Bastiat Blogger mentioned. In demanding commitment, they’ve priced themselves out of the market among their own SMV counterparts.
Third, I don’t think there’s much surprise here for guys – we all know that good looking men have options, often with women a point or two lower, but hey, beauty is only a lightswitch away.
Fourth, guys clearly do better if they are neither underweight nor obese. Getting in shape is a must.
The really big losers, I’m afraid are the very low SMV people, especially the males. Same as it ever was.
Hope makes a good point. This study looks at physical attractiveness, and the results are significant. However, don’t forget all the other things that correlate with promiscuity:
low SES
parental divorce
childhood trauma or lack of attachment
personality traits: Low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, high risk-seeking, high novelty-seeking
the DRD4 dopamine receptor mutation
higher prenatal exposure to androgens
sociosexual orientation
I’m sure there are beautiful women who are head cases and act slutty. There are also many less attractive women who are not the least bit promiscuous.
For me, the most interesting finding is not that pretty women have more options, which makes sense, but that when women have options, they pursue long-term strategies for mating. This study calls into question the Sexual Strategies/”good genes” theory. That’s major.
@Hope
This was clearly indicated in the study of teen social dominance. There were dominant groups of each sex, and they socialized with one another. They were “popular.” I don’t know whether that correlates to promiscuity – perhaps the hottest girls make their dominant boyfriends wait longer. But it seemed pretty clear that social grops and cliques were highly stratified.
@Susan
“The restricted women will feel vindicated and the guys will feel discouraged.”
Discouraged no. This is a reason for any man dating a woman below a 9 to sleep with one eye open. It supports the feral female hypothesis.
If looking both ways before crossing the road is discouraging that person is pathetic.
Note: Should note that in relation to this result, the woman most likely to cuckold their mate are the average woman as well (ie. SMV 4-7).
Also note, higher N correlates to higher rates of infidelity (which supports above).
“Second, the most attractive women lack suitors for the reasons Bastiat Blogger mentioned. ”
Men aren’t women. Seeing our competitors in pain does not provide pleasure. Winning is enough. Its the rare male who gloats and yes, they are typically the guy you want to walk 10 feet around in a crowd.
Ie. This isn’t good news. Just an observation.
So in actuality, there is only good news for women. Bad news for men.
————
Two things I’d like to hear your opinion on.
1. Whether or not this supports the feral female hypothesis?
2. You have a thing for assortative mating in which the low N people get together. That seems unlikely given these findings, no?
“This study calls into question the Sexual Strategies/”good genes” theory. That’s major.”
I mentioned this above.
Cuckolding increases when women enter LTRs as opposed to STRs. (Harder to pull off the STR cuckold obviously.)
It doesn’t say ye or ne to the good genes-provider hypothesis. Just shows that when resources are available they will be utilized.
“I find other factors – feminist attitude, daddy issues and high testosterone in women – to be much more important in terms of how promiscuous a woman is.”
I agree 100% about feminist entitlement being a slut tell. But testosterone? I’ve never seen IRL, but will keep an eye out re acquaintances who are unrestricted, in case I just haven’t noticed.
There are just as many results saying that curvier women are more promiscuous. How can both curvy women and women with high testosterone be promiscuous for example?
Plus there are bubbly, socially successful, charming and pretty extroverted girls who happen to be unrestricted/feminine, and plenty of quite, shy, and kind bookworm girls who are feminine introverts and restricted.
For example, as a fairly “male brained” type, I am still restricted. If I have lots of testosterone, I should’ve had no problem getting laid way more than I actually do.
It is possible too that I know nothing about how hormones work.
As an eternal skeptic of surveys and studies… I have to say this one makes a lot of sense to me.
It makes sense that the more attractive women are more fun to play with and game. They haven’t had multiple dicks beat out the fun and innocence from them.
Really attractive women are always being gamed and IMO more likely to dislike it, be hip to it.
@Susan
Choosing an slightly underweight female might be an overall male strategy to have someone with a longer “sexually attractive expiration date” if they are marriage minded. As my grandfather, jokingly, told me to always pick the thin ones, because they will only gain weight over time (like most everyone). Also look at the mother, because that’s how the girl will look like (and behave like) in 20-30 years.
@Susan,
Not only stratified, but I think also pretty seriously self-segregating as well. I have always been attracted to a nerdy woman (the sort of girl who was invariably out of the h.s. cliques), and frequently not even vaguely attracted to the “hot” ones. I moved a lot and my own relation to those cliques was pretty, .. well, combative. My experience may not track.
Not sure how cuckolding relates here, b/c those that I’m aware of are not usually “casual sex” so much as “side relationship.” I off-base on that?
Not mentioned is the potential size of the dating pool for high SMV men and women related to age, given age distribution tables.
Given that women tend to date at or above their age cohort within a narrow band while men date within a larger band below their age cohort.
This may force high SMV women to settle earlier at their peak value given the shrinking pool of high value mates as they age. While high SMV men will delay settling as the high value pool increases as they age to a certain point.
@ Ion:
+ 1000
Back in college I knew two girls who were a SMV 2. They were both overweight/obese and were very promiscuous! The guys they hooked up simply didn’t care. Some were of similar SMV but any guy who wanted to hit would have a shot. To my knowledge no man of SMV 5+ would actually consider making these girls their girlfriend!
I’ve realized for a long time looks have little to do with promiscuity. A girl in need of male validation is a more reliable slut tell than outward attractiveness. Not to say there aren’t women with healthy self esteem who enjoy sexual encounters with a variety of partners — those women are definitely in the minority whereas the majority of girls that engage that behavior are not doing it for independent and earnest enjoyment.
I’ve also longed realized high drive =/= promiscuous. There are plenty of high drive women and men who express their sexuality within the confines of a loving relationship. Likewise, there are low and average drive women who use sex with various men to feel “special”, “loved”, or “wanted”.
@ Jimmy Hendricks
That’s cause it’s a well designed study (and thus got a result that makes a lot of sense). I was amazed by the thoroughness with which the author wrote this paper (and especially the discussion of limitations at the end, which didn’t seem to just pay lip service to study limitations).
Hope: “If that were the case I’d have dated the Bastiats and Zachs, not Coopers and OTCs.”
Hey, hey, now… no need to insult Cooper like that by lumping him in with me!
@ Hope
Well then you’re an exception to the assortative mating rule.
This is why I dislike the term “hot”. It has a certain connotation of popularity/easiness that is independent of actual attractiveness. Wearing a low cut top and miniskirt, and having an extreme tan doesn’t actually mean the person is attractive.
Also, I know some of the guys here have a more feminine preference, but personally I’ve noticed that I tend to get disproportionately attracted to girls in jeans and t-shirts.
@ ForeverBeta
That’s also what I figured. While it may not matter for STRs, it’s preferable to choose someone below the optimal fat level so that she’ll be good over the long term.
A guy can be hot, 9 or 10, maybe 8, and not have the confidence that ought to go with it.
These guys, along with others who know their (lower) place in the SMV may be intimidated by a 10. Not even try. Lust from a distance. Who does this leave? Well, as I mentioned in another thread, it might leave apparent or real losers, but conventionally we’d presume it leaves the 9s and 10s who know who they are and what they bring to the table.
A pretty elite group. Now, what does one of those do to stand out from his peers? Right. Offer LTR. Which would necessarily cut down the n for the 10 woman, unless she wants to up her number for some reason or other. But she could have all the bed time she wants with one guy. Or, I suppose, use the promise of future delight to stay both out of bed and in the relationship leading to marriage.
@ Iggles,
A friend of mine who as the highest count in my social group said exactly that. He would go to parties and look for girls with low self esteem because they were easy. Goth attire, strange hair, lots of tatoos, Daddy issues, divorced parents, etc. were things he looked for.
The funny thing is this guy is totally not an alpha. In fact, he’s the omega of the office and is dominated by his wife. He hasn’t much game, is fairly short, weak chin, a bit pudgy. But he knew how to pick an easy lay.
I doubt they are 2′s. 2 would have some physical deformity, an extremely unappealing face, quite old, or all three. I see obese (200-300) women get hit on regularly by VERY in-shape guys, just because they have decent, if not attractive, youthful faces and, say, under 35. They get hit on enough to get annoyed with it and still be picky.
If we’re talking about folks under twenty-five, I do find myself wondering whether the man quickly serving up ‘commitment’ on a plate to an attractive woman is really offering a committed relationship or whether his penis is just trying to make a proposal that will result in sex.
I mean, if you’re courting a hot chick then looks are probably important to you. If they weren’t so important you could probably court a pleasant seven or eight, to use the parlance around here.
Coupled with the general sentiment that it requires a kamikaze fortitude to approach a really hot woman, it just seems fishy. I’d be interested to hear my point of view challenged, though.
–
To INTJ:
I don’t have the slightest problem with jeans and t-shirts. I’d be much more concerned with how a woman acts than what she wears.
Certain demographics do show a peculiar tendency to pair, say, a man 5’10″ and 150 lbs with a woman 5’5″ and 230 lbs.
@Hope,
Our fabulous blog mistress has already posted on that. Short answer – those plainer girls work for their ring and lock down a mate ASAP.
Like all those guys convinced “game” is going to land them a supermodel?
@Lokland
No, because the study does not address the likelihood or degree of female promiscuity. It simply finds that less attractive women are more likely to be promiscuous. This is very much in keeping with the oft cited observation that good looking men typically dip down a couple of points for a ONS.
One clue is that stat that overweight women report 10% more partners than normal weight women. That’s not a large discrepancy – it could be the difference between 2 and 2.2 partners (on average). We also can’t assume the least attractive women are having sex with the most attractive men, obviously. It’s very much in keeping with what I’ve observed many times – the losers in this SMP are the highest SMV women and the lowest SMV men.
Well, the odds of getting married are still very high – between 80% and 90% for a college educated male. So assortative mating is still very much the norm. Not only that, there are more hypogamous than hypergamous marriages among college graduates, so the claim that women have a strong desire to marry up is very much in question, at least among the educated.
@Lokland
True, but if you remove short-term mating strategies from the female playbook, it should go way down. If women prefer committed relationships for reproducing, the incentive to mate outside the LTR is sharply reduced.
@Jimmy
I thought you might like this one.
I usually ignore the objectifying language tossed around here, but the way this was phrased made me pause.
@Russ
I don’t know, to be honest. The cuckolding rates are thought to be quite low. I think the best estimate is 2-4%. Given that around 20% of married women have cheated, I’m surprised it isn’t higher.
My sense is that it is the extramarital affair, motivated not by a desire to get a good genes baby while maintaining the marriage, but to move on from the marriage in most cases. As one sociologist said, the woman wants to replace her zero with a hero.
Yes, this is another reason why women do well to date up 5-10 years. Their high SMV potential mates will not be on the same timetable. They need to find their partner just as he’s ready to exit the STR market.
Good point. People can be unrestricted in their sociosexuality and channel that into a LTR. I’m probably to the unrestricted side of center, yet have had no difficulty maintaining monogamy for 30 years, because that relationship meets my needs.
And as you say, the opposite is also true.
@Richard
This is not at all uncommon. There are an awful lot of good-looking guys who are restricted by nature, prefer LTRs etc., so they don’t present with any kind of bravado or cocky behavior. It’s not their personality. These guys will do OK for STRs if they want them, and most will go along with some casual sex. But the ones I have known are on the lookout for a pretty girl who wants to be their gf. A lot of them wind up with slightly less attractive gf’s for the reason you state.
@jack
I hear you. I hope they don’t all find HUS, because I have no idea what to tell them.
We are entering a period where the odds are strong that many women and men will be unhappily single, and will not be able to get together – they won’t be compatible.
That’s how the sexes cheat. A woman wants a different man. A man wants an additional woman.
@ mr. wavevector:
Yikes.. that sounds about right in terms of targeting “the weakness in the pack”. In reality, both people are using one another. The women would be wiser to get therapy and proactively resolve their issues but you get what you give…
@ OTC:
Won’t post any pictures (that would be unethical) but these girls did not have an attractive face nor body (as they were both obese). In my estimation they are solid 2s.
Yes, 2s can pull a variety of men their SMV and higher for ONS and such. If they’re women that is. An SMV 2 male would not have similar “success”.
@ SW:
Yep. It depends on the individual. Unrestricted orbit high drive does not mean one will stray in a LTR.
Yeah. I dont want to sound preachy, but honestly,I do have sympathy for women caught in the cycle of seeking male validation. Traveling down that path does not heal emotional scars. It leads to a lot of emotional pain and emptiness. The men they often wind up with are not good for them, as like attracts like (broken people get into dysfunctional relationships with other broken people).
@Susan#64: that jives with my experience – more or less every single adulterous woman I’ve known (long story).
Ugh. Autocorrect… Meant to say:
Unrestricted or high drive
How can the researchers validly compare partner counts of people of different ages? Older people usually have more partners because they’ve had more opportunities to do so.
Same goes for attractiveness, ‘cept younger people are more attractive and tend to have fewer partners.
“We are entering a period where the odds are strong that many women and men will be unhappily single, and will not be able to get together – they won’t be compatible.”
We’ll thats cheery.
@Iggles
There is a young woman from one of my focus groups that meets this description. I love her dearly. I have known her since she was 13, and watched her endure an incredibly acrimonious divorce. Her parents are still in court 6 years after they separated. She has practically lived with us over summers and college breaks.
Her relationships are terribly dysfunctional – she chooses bad men, and when she gets it wrong and finds a good guy, she sabotages it. I have intervened so many times, encouraged her to get some help, but I can’t get through. I’m so worried about her. Her number is “I don’t even know.” 75? I don’t see her ever having a healthy relationship. It’s heartbreaking.
Susan, you still haven’t yet specified what the good news is for the average to below average guy here.
Nor even a potential course of action.
Do The Least Attractive Women Have the Least Sex?
“We are entering a period where the odds are strong that many women and men will be unhappily single, and will not be able to get together – they won’t be compatible.”
MP’d Harem Has Beens vs The Dry Spellers
@Yeah No
The data is from the National Adolescent Health Survey, and the researchers selected out the data for the older cohort. So the age range is actually quite narrow.
Hmmm, I thought I offered some good insights. Did you think I have all the answers? I’m just an amateur. I’ll sleep on this and try to come back with something better tomorrow.
@Sue
“Hmmm, I thought I offered some good insights”
For woman and slightly above average men.
There was nothing in there directed at normal men.
Ohh, I see you responded to me and I missed it. Give me a minute here.
Susan: the young woman you’re describing sounds exactly like my sister!
It’s impossible to talk to her about, she is both “feminist” in her statements but at the same time sensitive about her number (I imagine the girl you’re talking about is the same).
I know two factors contributing to her problems: insecurities and daddy issues (our father died when we were little). She seeks constant sexual validation, from new men, all the time. She’s cheated and been cheated on, had all sorts of sexual relationships, all of them with men way below her league. Normally I would say “each to their own”, but I am a bit worried. Being slutty makes it difficult to get female friendships and I am also worried that she is not so fussy with protection (she said she wouldn’t want an HIV test as she doesn’t want to know the result)
Someone mentioned “touch therapy” once, it might have been on the HUS forum. Some women have an extreme need for physical contact and there is a form of therapy that can decrease it. Other than that, regular therapy is a good idea. I think it’s difficult to come to the point where you realize you need it – my sister’s been in those situations (dating a guy who said she wasn’t “girlfriend material”, being dumped by the guy she fell for), but you can always rationalize it.
Would be interesting to hear if someone has any advice on how to help or if they’ve witnessed someone who’s changed. I love my sister and she is beautiful and funny and educated, she could get an amazing guy if she aimed for it. I also have some health concerns.
@Susan
“True, but if you remove short-term mating strategies from the female playbook, it should go way down. If women prefer committed relationships for reproducing, the incentive to mate outside the LTR is sharply reduced.”
This is literally a hobby horse I’ve ridden so far into the ground I might as well regurgitate all the crap into a book.
Ugly women cheat more than pretty woman because they can’t get what they want/need.
Your point is not logical it would have no effect on reproducing with good genes, only what constitutes those good genes. (We can assume the guys getting cuckolded are not the winners under either metric.)
Last, cuckolding increases (not decreases) with an increase in LTRs. Mostly due to the fact that you can’t cuckold a guy in a society where P&D is the norm.
“My sense is that it is the extramarital affair, motivated not by a desire to get a good genes baby while maintaining the marriage, but to move on from the marriage in most cases. As one sociologist said, the woman wants to replace her zero with a hero.”
The problem with this is the same that game faces. Its entirely results focused which results in massive confirmation bias.
We don’t here about the woman who silently cheats on her husband without anything changing, rarer for sure but not unheard of.
Its only the cases where Jerry Springer becomes involved (hyperbole) that get studied (mostly).
@ Ted
You’re not in the SMP, this information is of curiousity and trivia to you, not action. Unless you’re trying to teach your sons.
And what you are trying to teach your sons shouldn’t have changed at all. Women have “rules.” They are not “laws.” These are rules that are relaxed for more attractive men. Certain women will be quite restricted, but the norm is that a typical women will have SOME past of casual sex, which means, by default, you must assume a woman is price discriminating against you, because she probably is.
The strategy for your boys is:
1. Maximize their attractiveness
2. Remove the pedestalization
3. Do not offer commitment easily
4. Do not get emotionally attached easily
5. Maintain low investment in any girl that you are not formally dating, which means sleeping with
6. Build your social circle to meet new girls
7. Work on your short-term attraction triggers to the exclusion of all else
8. Approach, approach, approach
It was exactly the same advice before this post, it is exactly the same advice after this post, it will continue to be the same advice until society gets it head out of its ass.
Truly restricted girls and the blue pill dating script that accompanies them should be considered unicorns that will not be encountered except on the internet. All other girls should be expected to put out early and if she isn’t, she’s not that into you, move on. Unless you are already in a relationship, you should be meeting new girls every single day.
Every.
Single.
Day.
No girl is special until she has made the investment to prove herself special. Remember, half of them are having ONSs and FWBs. Not special, not worthy of worship, not worthy of dating or high-level investment, until proven otherwise.
@Susan
“So assortative mating is still very much the norm. Not only that, there are more hypogamous than hypergamous marriages among college graduates, so the claim that women have a strong desire to marry up is very much in question, at least among the educated.”
I’m having a stupid moment.
Are you saying that hypogamy is becoming more common and therefore most men with low N will be end up with women with higher N? (Which was the original topic, not sure if the switch was to SES or an anologous example still applying to N.)
Note: The SES debate isn’t of much interest to me. Nor is the whoze gotz more brains debate particularly useful to me.
@Susan
Honest question.
“I don’t see her ever having a healthy relationship. It’s heartbreaking.”
Why?
Lok: “For woman and slightly above average men. There was nothing in there directed at normal men.”
The article? Or all of HUS?
I’m having a stupid moment.
Are you saying that hypogamy is becoming more common and therefore most men with low N will be end up with women with higher N? (Which was the original topic, not sure if the switch was to SES or an anologous example still applying to N.)
Note: The SES debate isn’t of much interest to me. Nor is the whoze gotz more brains debate particularly useful to me.
My understanding is when Susan uses the term hypergamy/hypogamy she is talking exclusively about occupational status/income/social strata. So a college educated woman marrying a very physically attractive, socially dominant man with a high N who is a plumber would be an example of hypogamy even though perhaps his overall SMV is equal or even greater when you factor everything in and not just job/income/educational pedigree
@ADBG
You can call me North Korea – I’m huntin’ me a unicorn!!
Lmao
@Anne
I’m so sorry to hear your sister is so troubled. The woman I know is extremely attractive as well – she’s a dark-haired beauty with enormous eyes. That’s part of the problem – she gets hit on by cads all the time. Though she’s not discriminating in general – she once told me that she doesn’t have the heart to turn down any guy for sex. !!!!!
She used to turn to me often, but she’s now claiming she’s in a “great” relationship – with a guy who started having sex with her while living with another woman. He’s 29 going on 23. He seems to like her a lot – he walked 5 miles in the blizzard last weekend to see her – but he’s a loser, highly unreliable. It’s not going to end well.
I’m no therapist and she needs the best at this point.
“He would go to parties and look for girls with low self esteem because they were easy. Goth attire, strange hair, lots of tattoos, Daddy issues, divorced parents, etc. were things he looked for.”
Yeah they are easy to pick off. I must have too high of self esteem though because anytime I get into a conversation with that type of gal I can’t stand them more than a few minutes.
I guess I like the challenge of a girl whose head is on straight. They are a lot more fun to game.
@Lokland
Not sure if you’re asking why no relationship or why heartbreaking.
Re the first, she clearly feels unworthy of love, which is not surprising given her family history. Though custody battles raged in court, neither parent attended lovingly to the children. When they split up, her mother bought a condo and informed her there was no room for her to sleep there. She was still in college, which is why she spent most nights over breaks and summers at my house. Her father fell in love with someone else in 2004 and left her mother in 2007, so that’s complicated. They are on good terms, but the history is messy.
In short, she does not believe that love lasts and does not know what a good marriage looks like.
It’s heartbreaking because she wants to love someone so much. She wants a happy marriage, but she doesn’t think she’ll ever have that. In short, she’s smart and beautiful and kind and a hot mess. I don’t see how she climbs out of this pit.
Re hypogamy, I referenced a particular recent post that looked at differing education levels between spouses. This has been studied because the traditional definition of hypergamy has been that women “marry up” in terms of traditional status markers, including education.
This is very relevant today in light of the lopsided college sex ratio. However, the data shows that in fact, there are more women who marry men with less education than themselves, than the reverse:
Marriages where female has more education (hypogamy): 27.4%
Same education: 41.7%
Less education (hypergamy): 30.9%
Net hypergamy: 3.5%
However, look what happens when we segment by education:
Net hypergamy 12 years or less of education: 45.4%
Net hypergamy more than 12 years: -18.6%
My guess is that the hypogamous marriages generally reflect difference in degrees earned within the same SES group rather than big gaps in status. Unfortunately, the data is not broken out any further.
Re the guy with high SMV, his MMV will be considerably lower if his education, income, status, etc. are lower than his wife’s. This is a pairing that neither men nor women prefer.
@Susan
“It’s heartbreaking because she wants to love someone so much. She wants a happy marriage, but she doesn’t think she’ll ever have that. In short, she’s smart and beautiful and kind and a hot mess. I don’t see how she climbs out of this pit.”
Cynic moment.
What if she does climb out of that pit?
Does the new guy get a relationship get to sail off into the sun happy?
Or does he take on an incredibly high risk project with much chance of pain for him.
Or what happens to her children? Do they get the same treatment she did?
Very cynical (and I lack all the info), but based upon your description. Less harm will probably come if she doesn’t pair off.
Past a certain point containment is better than curing.
@Sue
Yes, I understand hypergamy. I don’t understand how it applies to what you quoted from me which had to do with N count.
@Lokland
No I made no association between hypergamy and N. I’m not sure what you’re asking here. As I said earlier, this study says nothing about what percentage of less attractive women are promiscuous, only that less attractive women are more likely to go for Plan B, which is STR if that’s all they can get. However, past posts have already established that the women pursuing this strategy are in a 10-20% minority. Nothing new on this front.
What’s different here is that this study indicates that women do not in general alternate between STR and LTR strategies, a key tenet among some evolutionary theorists. LTR is Plan A, STR is Plan B if LTR is a fail. No doubt the most hypergamous women are the most likely to go to Plan B. Since the hottest women are already on a par with the hottest guys, hypergamy is not applicable. It’s the less attractive women who want the more attractive men who go the STR route. But that’s still a minority of less attractive women. Most people do not have casual sex regularly, though according to the Match survey 44% of women have had a ONS.
If this doesn’t answer your question, please rephrase or elaborate.
@Lokland
These are valid questions, but I don’t think it will come to that, as she does not date stable LTR-oriented men. She radiates “damage” – one guy told me it’s like she has a big X on her forehead. She frequently drinks too much, makes out with randoms, etc. I think there’s little chance of a good guy getting fooled, and if he does he’s an idiot.
I admit I don’t think she would make a good mother. I can’t even imagine it. This is why I feel heartbroken – I don’t see a good life ahead for her.
@Susan
“If this doesn’t answer your question, please rephrase or elaborate.”
At the end of comment 60. I mentioned N (quoted) and you talk about hypergamy.
Confused
As I said. SES hypergamy doesn’t matter to me. I have no real opinion on it. Simply is.
“However, past posts have already established that the women pursuing this strategy are in a 10-20% minority. Nothing new on this front.”
Yes. I tend to forget this detail.
The problem with the info as given is that it doesn’t show the distribution of numbers within an N class.
Ex. The 10% higher rate could be due to a uniform 10% increase across all woman or a lumped up 50% increase for 20% within the class.
I haven’t looked at the paper but I doubt thats available for viewing.
Conclusion: I was tired and had a headache last night. Makes more sense in the light. My mistake.
Also, on a side note.
I remember arguing with you about advancing paternal age and its effect on mental health.
I have just had it demonstrated to me how wrong I was.
I stand corrected.
There is no good news. Same as it always was…stop being average and get better in some way. If you won’t do it, there are many other guys who will. Comes down to the same ol’ value of an egg vs. sperm.
Personally, as I’ve stated before, I don’t have much sympathy for the average guy who complains and whines, but I will help out the average guy who wants to get better. There is just too much info out there now on working out, nutrition, style and game for one to sit back and go woe is me.
@Lokland
Can you explain?
Two items: Hyper/hypo-ogamy need not be clamped to education. I hope. A guy with an AA in, say, mechanical thingies working as a foreman in one of the oil boom areas–Bakken, Eagle Ford, etc.–is going to make a ton more money, have a whole lot more responsibility, be far more an alpha in dealing with the world, be far more competent dealing with the world than the average middle-class suburban guy with a BA in management–where he’ll start off in sales–and no more mechanical competence than you get mowing the lawn, or dominance of his world than the average middle class guy who wasn’t on the football team in HS.
If going to work in a white shirt is the marker, somebody has a problem. There remains NOKD (Not Our Kind, Dear), which is going to leave some women missing opportunities.
Second. I worked with a ten-plus. Bright as a new penny, later got advanced degrees in severely different fields. She had a public self-presentation which could be characterized as “don’t even think it”, even around colleagues she’d known for some time. Her reaction to a mildly suggestive remark was a stare that would shrivel the balls on a bull elephant in musth. Cheerful, funny, personable, insightful one on one if you weren’t chasing her.
She was more or less engaged at the time I knew her–married the guy later on–and I wondered how on earth she got any relationships. The hypothetical guy would have to start out as a colleague or friend most obviously not chasing her, get inside the outer defenses so to speak, and wait for her to decide if he was worthy, after which…. I guess she’d have to do the initiating. Can’t have been easy, considering part of her time and energy were involved in fending off the buttheads.
Thing is, she had what was known euphemistically as a “stunning figure” which is more than simply sexy. It implies, for some reason, that the bearer is easy.
or they could have just looked around.
very attractive women are more able to get what they want – commitment – while giving less of what men want – non-committal sex. very attractive men are more able to get what they want – non-committal sex – while giving less of what women want – commitment.
of course, the definition of “attractive” is different for men and women.
the alpha male is the man who can get con-committal sex from the alpha female (most beautiful).
the alpha female is the woman who can get commitment from the alpha male (rich/famous/etc).
thus when we look at say, male professional athletes or rock stars, they are usually with the most beautiful women. And when we look at the most beautiful women, they are usually with rock stars, rich guys, or similar.
these days though, with non-committal sex being easier and easier to obtain for men, the balance has tipped in favor of males (mostly alpha males, but even beta males to some degree).
Jason, while I agree self-improvement is key, everyone can’t be above-average at the same time, and not everyone has the same goals.
If a man is severely failing at mating, then, there’s likely a much bigger problem than merely being “average”. There’s far more of us, then there are of you. Below-average me still has three kids, and an intact family, and far more excellent lifetime sex than most unmarried people, most married ones. I do okay for such a slob.
But, you are right, whining wont help. Anne’s sister will in general get the “it’s heartbreaking” sympathy from most people, men will get “you loser” reaction. It’s reality, and it’s not nice. The sooner we accept it, the better.
Well it’s cleary not an issue for the educated, and very much an issue for the less educated. I have no idea why that is or what the dynamics are. Quizzle females obviously want men with more education than they have, but I don’t know how much more.
Or maybe she was just sending clear signals that she was already committed to someone else. “Don’t even think it” is very appropriate in that case.
Always knew I was a babe
partner count in 30 (ahem) years = 1
… And back in the real world.
Personally, as I’ve stated before, I don’t have much sympathy for the average guy who complains and whines, but I will help out the average guy who wants to get better. There is just too much info out there now on working out, nutrition, style and game for one to sit back and go woe is me.
+1,000,000. You can’t change your height. You can’t change your facial structure although you can accentuate strengths and downplay weaknesses. But there is an absolute ton you can change. You can get fit and lean. You can learn to dress so you don’t look like a dork. And you can learn to do all sorts of things that project the right demeanor. One thing this post highlights which I’ve mentioned previously is the important of male physical attractiveness. One takeaway should be to do your absolute best to maximize whatever you do have. Life is competition. Mating, career, income, etc. You simply have to make yourself better than the “average guy”.
That’s apples and oranges. I think it’s heartbreaking that she is incapable of relating to men in an emotionally healthy way. Not because her N is high. I also think it’s heartbreaking if men spend a lifetime incapable of relating to a woman sexually.
Aside from a few weirdos, most people want to relate to another human being both emotionally and sexually. I am sorry for anyone who wants that and isn’t able to have it.
@Susan
“Can you explain?”
Someone handed me my ass back on a silver platter after proving I was wrong.
As I said, I stand corrected.
@Susan
” I am sorry for anyone who wants that and isn’t able to have it.”
This is a rarity. Most people would prefer to point and laugh.
@Jason
“Jason, while I agree self-improvement is key, everyone can’t be above-average at the same time, and not everyone has the same goals.”
This.
Red Queen. Not everyone gets to be awesome. Its all quite relative.
Also, I was mostly just trying to get Susan to admit that there is no good news and being average isn’t a good thing. I’m tired of hearing that everyone is capable of attaining happiness/contentment, its inherently untrue.
All of Mike C’s advice is true for women as well.
One disturbing finding was that underweight women did as well as “very attractive” women:
For women the effect of being underweight (<18.5 BMI) on within-relationship outcomes resembles the effect of being very physically attractive.
If that isn’t a clear signal of what men want, I don’t know what is. McClintock explicitly states that women thinner than the universal ideal, so thin they looked less fertile, did best with men. That’s cultural conditioning, and it’s real. It sucks for women, because getting under 18.5 BMI is not even healthy:
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/433167-what-to-do-if-your-bmi-is-18-5/#ixzz2KnHMb3Du
I wouldn’t advise women to try for that. There have got to be many men who will be just fine with BMI of 20-25.
It’s not good news but it’s not the end of the world either. If people honestly assess their own SMV, and diligently target potential mates with the same or lower SMV, most can mate. A far higher percentage than earlier in history, that’s for sure.
Entitlement, or “pickiness” gets in the way of this strategy. People buy into the expectation that they will get to have a beautiful mate, and they refuse to settle. Of course, that’s their right. I’ve seen men here at HUS (no regulars) say, “I’m a 5 but females 5s disgust me.” Fair enough, no one’s forcing you to mate.
So, is this implying that casual sex (for most women) is not a choice but a necessity? As in, the only reason that women engage in casual sex is because they’re not attractive enough to secure a monogamous relationship? I can just hear the sex pos jezebelsphere foaming.
Another thing that I don’t see mentioned is self-esteem. Isn’t validation another one of the reasons why some girls seek casual sex? If they’re pretty, they will get male attention (more than they want, usually) but if they’re not, they’re going to want to seek it.
Not being attractive -> Low self-esteem -> Seek casual sex for validation
Not being attractive -> Confidence and sexually unrestricted -> Settles for casual sex because she cannot secure a monogamous relationship
In both cases, the behaviour is rationalized.
Susan,
I’ll admit that I’m attracted to very thin, but “in shape” girls, and I do see why there is a very high appeal for this demographic. Full disclosure, my past gfs were 5’8, 125lb (BMI = 19) and 5’2, 100lb (BMI = 18.3) but I wouldn’t say that they were unhealthy or underweight at all. They had small frames, which was simply very attractive to me.
I can see how this can be difficult and dangerous for girls with larger natural frames though. This might be due to social conditions, but also due to pushback to so many overweight women these days.
@Guavaberry
Upthread I mentioned lots of other factors that are also correlated with promiscuity, and certainly it’s true that many women do it for male validation, even when they don’t enjoy the sex itself.
The study is not meant to imply that attractiveness is the only predictor of promiscuity, just that it is a significant one.
@Jason
Well you don’t really know whether they were unhealthy or not, as this is measured by immune function, bone thinning, and hormone levels. The Livestrong article speaks to BMI only, not frame size. 18.5 is the cutoff, so your gf with a BMI of 19 makes the cut for normal, and the other girl is close.
I’m curious to understand the cultural piece of this. Some theories:
1. The fashion industry, controlled by women and gay men, has successfully altered male perceptions of beauty in the last 50 years.
2. In an era where males are feminized and generally not psychologically dominant, being with an underweight woman allows physical dominance.
3. Female intrasexual competition, which rewards thinness to a pathological degree, produces the “alpha females” from whom attractive males select.
Any other ideas?
Susan,
Here’s an interesting post that might be relevant: Yes, Women Do Compete for Men. It’s what you could call “older woman game” – show those dejected beta boys a bit of love. It might work for women disadvantaged in looks & weight too.
(emphasis mine)
A drastic de-emphasis on childbearing and motherhood as the primary role for women.
Susan,
#2 is pretty much the whole story for me, and at least a few guys that I’ve talked to about this. Now, I’m 6’0″, 210lb, so I’d be hard pressed to find a girl I couldn’t dominate, but still, there is something about being much bigger that is just primal, and I think most guys would agree.
A big issue now is that there aren’t the same number of thin girls out there for your middle of the road height and weight male. In 1950, if you were an average 5’10″, 170lb male, you could easily find an average 5’4, 120lb female that you would feel physically superior to. Now, the average female in the US is something like 5’4, 150lb. That is only slightly overweight according to the BMI scale, but now there is much less of a chance that the average man will feel physically superior.
It is supply and demand in this case. When there are much fewer thin girls out there, thin and even slightly underweight girls are now at a premium.
@Susan, my personal theory about the attractiveness of underweight women:
In a country were obesity is so rampant, thinness is seen as a proxy for self-control and high status.
Also, the types of clothes worn. Have you ever seen mad men? You might have noticed that the clothes in the era favored body types like Christina Hendricks, which looks fabulous in the show but looks “chunky” in everyday clothes. Very thin girls tend to wear (at least in my texas college campus) flowy clothes, long summer dresses or tight pants with flowy tunic-style shirts bellow. It’s really hard to actually notice how thin they are unless you actually pay close attention to it.
I forgot to specify, with high status I mean high socioeconomic status. A year ago I had the opportunity to go to an even in a very exclusive country club. All of the girls were stick thin in gorgeous summer dresses and pearls. Their mothers were too (with the addition of implants).
Now, the ghetto supermarket and different fried chicken and taco locales in downtown, she-whales are rampant.
I have a poor understanding of fashion, media, and culture, and particularly any role those would play in guiding women to be thinner or men to prefer thinner women.
Off the top of my head it’s not clear to me why women themselves would push these changes. I get the impression that women like having curves. The desire for implants would seem to support that.
However, my male brain tells me that in an era of fat people, thinness is a good proxy for self-control and intelligence. At a glance I can guess that you’re of good stock.
Of course the other way of interpreting this is that a very thin woman is merely ill with a disorder of some kind. I’m not sure men would really understand this, though. It might not be an intuitive red flag.
This is probably not a new theory.
PS: I am amused by this ‘pick a thin woman so she’ll fill out over the next 20 years’ school of thought. I’m not used to thinking of picking a mate like livestock.
“Just feed her a little and she’ll grow into a lovely woman!”
damn / tags!
BMI is a poor estimate of body type that does not take differences of build into account. It has some merit for demographic studies, but not much as a means to evaluate individuals.
This paper (Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI), Percent Body Fat, and Leptin) shows how useless BMI is on an individual basis. If you look at the scatter plot in Figure 1, you see that women with a BMI of 18.5 have an actual body fat percentage ranging from 10% to nearly 40%. This paper defines the healthy BFP for women as 15% to 25%, so many women with 18.5 BMI are within the healthy BFP range, and some are even overweight.
This paper also concludes that the BMI cutoff values are too high for women and should be lowered.
God damn guavaberry stole my line. I shake my fist at you sir.
Just messing.
It’s not really difficult to come to terms with, in my opinion.
I have a rather sturdy bone structure. My bones are denser, and the frame is generally larger than the frames of many very tiny women (probably due to my African-American genealogy). I’ve found that the key to having such a frame is about the same for any frame. I keep my calorie intact within healthy limits, I exercise, and I wear flattering clothing.
I know that I will never be a stick figure, or so thin that my spine will show through my skin. I’m curvy, and will always be so. With that being said, my body is well proportioned, and I tend to get upset whenever significantly overweight/obese women try to label themselves as curvy. Being curvy means being shaped like an hourglass/coke bottle. Being curvy does not mean having a barrel situated around one’s midsection.
As the study shows, underweight and normal weight women are considered the most physically attractive. A lot of women need to get within their normal weight parameters and update their wardrobes. If they did so, they wouldn’t have so much grief.
Or the rather obvious thing to do with fat.
Curvy women are still the most attractive and typically get the hottest guys.
Next is thin vs. chubby. In terms of child rearing potential thin women are better than chubby women and thus more often selected.
Since curviness is mutually exclusive with chubbiness but not with thinness its not surprising that those women are doing better.
Note: My wife is 5′ 2”, 102 pds. She has curves. Pretty normal for any woman with a small frame.
(Relative example, A cups on a 5′ 2” small framed woman look like D cups on a large framed 6′ woman. Not saying this applies to my wife but that its logic that is nat really hard to grasp. Proportions tend to matter quite a bit.)
To clarify my really muddled point.
All really curvy women are normal weight but not all normal weight women are curvy.
Most chubby women are not really curvy.
Most thin women are not really curly.
Most thin women are curvier than chubby women.
The normal weight non-curvy women skew the average partner count upwards when if the really curvy women are considered separately there is a difference in partner counts/relationship getting potential.
#2 is pretty much the whole story for me, and at least a few guys that I’ve talked to about this. Now, I’m 6’0″, 210lb, so I’d be hard pressed to find a girl I couldn’t dominate, but still, there is something about being much bigger that is just primal, and I think most guys would agree.
Since BMI is being repeatedly referenced on this thread it bears mentioning BMI is simply a shorthand heuristic to try and simply something that would be more complex and involved to measure. Again, for both men and women there is going to be some “normal” and “healthy” level of muscle mass and bodyfat level.
For example, without checking and off the top of my head, I’d bet Jason’s stats of 6’0″, 210 probably have him as dangerous fat on BMI when in reality he is probably sporting lower body fat than 99% of the male population. The difference is the extra 30-40 pounds of muscle compared to the average 6’0″. I’m carrying excess bodyfat right now, but BMI would have me as grossly obese since I am 6’3″ 280 but again the majority of the difference is the 50 pounds of muscle I’ve gained from 21 to 39.
So Jason’s point about frame is correct. A woman with a very petite, small bone structure is going to weigh less than a woman of the exact same height with a large bone structure and both could be equally as healthy with different BMIs. The assumption of BMI is normal bone structure and “normal” muscle mass level. The issue with some “underweight” women is their muscle mass level is way too low because they are literally starving themselves and because of their diet they are probably deficient in all sorts of necessary vitamins, minerals, healthy fats (like fish oil and essential fatty acids). It is important to understand that it isn’t the low BMI that is causing the health issues. The really low BMI is a result of deficient nutrition which causes both the excessively low BMI and health issues.
Body frame/bone structure cannot be underestimated. My entire family has very large frames including the females (my Mom and sister). People are usually shocked at their actual weights because they are not accounting for the frame. I don’t know what human bone density is, but I suspect it is much denser than fat so again a small increase in bone size is going to have a big impact on weight compared to bodyfat. Similarly, someone with a very petite small bone structure is probably going to be much lighter and have a really low BMI if if they have a healthy muscle mass level and get the proper nutrition.
In any case, a single BMI number isn’t the end all be all assessment without factoring in muscle mass level and bone structure.
Heh, that’s why I pointed it out. I’m baffled as to why men with this attitude don’t have women beating down their doors.
This paper (Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI), Percent Body Fat, and Leptin) shows how useless BMI is on an individual basis. If you look at the scatter plot in Figure 1, you see that women with a BMI of 18.5 have an actual body fat percentage ranging from 10% to nearly 40%. ***This paper defines the healthy BFP for women as 15% to 25%***, so many women with 18.5 BMI are within the healthy BFP range, and some are even overweight.
Ha…Mr. Wavevector…looks like you beat me to the punch showing the shortfalls of BMI
Hmmmm….that healthy BFP range for women is fascinating…I’ll have to check out that paper. That is basically consistent with what I was mentioning previously as the aesthetically ideal range as well. It is particularly interesting to see that value of 15% since I think there was some talk of 15% being “unhealthly” on the low side. In any case, female BF% is alot like the alpha/beta mix with guys in that most guys are plenty beta enough to begin with so debating too much alpha is just an academic exercise. Most guys have to beef up their alpha. Similarly, too many women are floating in the 30 to 35% range who consider their BF level a non-issue so arguing about whether 15% is too low is academic. Get down to 25% or 20% before you worry about whether 15 is too low.
This definitely supports my HS experience where all the skinny girls got boyfriends over their “heftier” counterparts.
@mr. wavevector
Ah, that makes sense. That reminds me of something from Buss’ book: For short-term mating, here are the three things men want most in a partner:
1. Promiscuity/high level of sexual experience
2. High sex drive
3. No chance for commitment; best if she is already in a relationship with someone else
Perhaps a very infertile looking body signals a lack of interest in reproducing, which would mean a lesser interest in commitment. All at a subconscious level of course.
@Jason
I just found a really interesting graphic.
While the average female BMI has gone from 21 to 27 between 1960 and 2009, the BMI of Playmates has gone from 19.4 to 17.6!
http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2009/st_infoporn_1702
Doing some research on BMI, men have gained more than women:
Overweight or obese: Men 74%, Women 64%
Obese: Men 36%, Women 36%
http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm
So women getting larger doesn’t really explain it.
Wow, where you live also makes a big difference:
Not surprisingly, education plays a role:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/741481
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016290
This makes a lot of sense. In societies where food is plentiful, thinness is higher status.
Does the multipenis factor (MPF) negatively correlate with perceived beauty factor (PBF)?
I see your diphallia and raise you an excellent case of calcinosis.
http://imgur.com/YvSD6 (NSFW, or for those who’ve eaten recently)
I tend to get upset whenever significantly overweight/obese women try to label themselves as curvy. Being curvy means being shaped like an hourglass/coke bottle. Being curvy does not mean having a barrel situated around one’s midsection.
I’ve seen big, hourglass-shaped women–think Ana Nicole. But I agree that big and apple-shaped or big and square isn’t curvy. Neither is that that skinny tubular or Olive Oyl body some models have now or the broomstick with bolt-on boobs bodies like Posh Spice. Hour glass is curvy, big or little.
Ref BMI. The guidelines are a scam. They’ve been ratcheted down. When I graduated from OCS, I was 6’2″, 205. Given 6000 calories and thirty-six hours’ sleep, I could have whipped a tiger one-handed. When I went to the fabled, infamous Airborne School, the physical requirements were a joke.
But according to current standards, I was overweight. It’s called prepping the battlespace for yet another government intrusion into our lives.
That said, I used to shop at a big box store. From time to time, I went to an upscale deli, the kind with forty-seven varietes of olive oil, if you get my meaning. No fat people in the latter. Nor poor folks.
My father, who would have been “overweight” when he was the fastest end in the conference UConn was in, says comfort food is for people whose lives are either stressful, unfulfilling, or boring.
Ha. When I went to the Airborne School, I would get myself thrown in the gig pit on purpose just to stay in shape. Now I hear there’s no gig pit anymore, and the PT requirements are even lower.
You might have noticed that the clothes in the era favored body types like Christina Hendricks
When I was a girl in the 60s, every copy of my mother’s Modern Romancemagazines had an ad in the back for a product called Wate -On. The before girl looked like Giselle Bundchen, the after like Christian Hendricks.
Here are some of the old ads:
http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2010/07/everything-old-is-new-again.html
I was a scrawn kid and was teased unmercilessly about it.
It sucks for women, because getting under 18.5 BMI is not even healthy:
BMI is BS–for both men and women. A perosn with heavy bones and a lot of muscle will have a high BMI and probably still look and feel terrific.
I should mention.
According to BMI and ideal weight, I’m 35-40 pounds overweight. We’ll within the obese range.
I’m training for an iron man competition this Summer.
Just to add another tidbit: women who get to too low a body-fat level tend to stop menstruating. The level depends on how fat they were once upon a time, so an always skinny girl can menstruate at 18 % body fat whereas a formerly obese women might stop at 25 %. So when we talk about fertility as a function of curviness, there’s a pretty hard cut-off. If a girl has defined abs, she probably can’t have a baby until she puts on more weight. Sometimes the leptin feedback system isn’t cooperative and women have to put on a lot of extra weight to get it going again. Defined abs generally show up around 8 % for guys and 18 % for women.
Ideal body fat levels for overall health are probably about 12 % for men and 23 % for women.
@Mike C.
It appeared this morning that I have lost 2 pounds. I’m hoping that’s the beginning of a downward trend and not just a fluctuation. In the meantime, I added 7.5 to each of my four bi-lat and shoulder machines and did three sets of 12 reps on each machine. I’m sore this morning, but I have weak arms anyway. Previously added 20 ponds to the leg press and didn’t even feel it.
“Gosh, Jean, you sure are popular since you put on those extra pounds!”
I note the direction of his gaze and that he can’t seem to figure out why…
Likely water weight, but keep an eye on it. If you weigh daily, keep track of the weekly lowest number.
I can vary 5 pounds in a day, water weight, and all that – that certainly neither fat nor muscle. A realistic, sustainable fat loss is only about 1 lb a week, unless the person is morbidly obese and can do 2-4.
While BMI isn’t the entire story, true, it is for most people. Some people who are athletes, it will peg incorrectly, but unless you are specifically training a lot, you’re not the exception. SO many people say “BMI is bunk!” when they have 35% bodyfat and a BMI of 38. Sorry, it’s right enough for you.
1 2 »
{ 1 trackback }